The Davis woman entered her plea in Yolo Superior Court in Woodland hours before she was to face a preliminary hearing on the charges related to the Jan. 22 incident.

Kirk-Coehlo, 30, was arrested Feb. 14 on suspicion of breaking six of the Davis mosque’s windows, damaging several bicycles at the mosque and wrapping pork around the handle of one of the mosque’s exterior doors, Davis police said. Muslims are forbidden to eat or touch pork.

“We welcome the plea. We hope this sends the message that committing hate crimes doesn’t pay off,” said Saad Sweilem, civil rights attorney for the Sacramento Valley chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations. “For our community, it gives a lot of comfort that there are consequences to these actions and that we are being protected.”

Couzens said that Kirk-Coehlo’ plea was “not a plea deal. It was not done with any promises from the district attorney or the court.”

Kirk-Coehlo could face up to six years in state prison when she is sentenced June 16, Couzens said. The case now goes to Yolo County probation officials for a sentencing report.

“She made very incendiary comments about wanting to do harm to various minority groups and showed a willingness to act on those desires in this case. Those facts are concerning,” Couzens said following the hearing. “The People will be arguing for a result that best protects the community.”

Davis police in a February declaration filed with Yolo Superior Court said Kirk-Coehlo took to texts and social media to praise mass murderer Dylann Roof, sentenced to death in January for shooting dead nine black parishioners in a Charleston, S.C., church in June 2015; expressed her own desires to take multiple lives; and had written about her dreams of killing people.

Davis police in the declaration said Kirk-Coehlo’s web searches included information on bomb vests, a Jan. 29 mosque attack in Quebec City in Canada that left six dead and wounded another 19 people, as well as searches of the Davis Islamic Center and a Woodland mosque, calling the unemployed UC Berkeley graduate “an immediate danger to the public.”

The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.

"I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

"It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul

Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.

Originally Posted by osan

The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

But it is obvious that the use of pork products was an act of purposeful hatred. Muslims, like Jews, have a religious objection to pork. Using it as a way to make Muslims and Jews unclean is a hateful act, like if I pissed on a cross.

That said, the trespassing, property damage, and her talking about wanting to follow Roof in murdering black people are serious criminal and social issues that should be addressed.

Last edited by PierzStyx; 04-23-2017 at 11:16 AM.

“Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

Good. Now they can apply these standards to all of the leftists who vandalize and destroy property every weekend.

Yeah, wishful thinking.

Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L"Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
"Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
"Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul

The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

[QUOTE=PierzStyx;6456534]I am against hate crime legislation as I am against thought crime.

But it is obvious that the use of pork products was an act of purposeful hatred. Muslims, like Jews, have a religious objection to pork. Using it as a way to make Muslims and Jews unclean is a hateful act, like if I pissed on a cross or left.

That said, the trespassing, property damage, and her talking about wanting to follow Roof in murdering black people are serious criminal and social issues that should be addressed.[/QUOTE]

Talking about isn't the same as doing. I talk about all kinds of things but I that doesn't mean I actually do anything. I agree with you, otherwise.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.

Yea, If I catch anyone doing the "piss of the Hadjj campaign", I would sucker punch said person in the head and give em a concussion before I call the cops on their sorry as*. There is no Hadjj campaign to get store and food places to sell Halal meat.

Private people conducting their business in a private setting and you want to piss on them? oh no, not going to let you get away with it.

Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.Geralt of Rivia

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

Anything can be used to commit a crime, take a fresh fruits/flowers to a room of a patient getting radiation therapy on purpose and you could be arrested for it. And someone would say, flower,/fresh fruits is a crime?........

Intent matters

Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.Geralt of Rivia

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

But it is obvious that the use of pork products was an act of purposeful hatred. Muslims, like Jews, have a religious objection to pork. Using it as a way to make Muslims and Jews unclean is a hateful act, like if I pissed on a cross or left.

That said, the trespassing, property damage, and her talking about wanting to follow Roof in murdering black people are serious criminal and social issues that should be addressed.[/QUOTE]

Talking about isn't the same as doing. I talk about all kinds of things but I that doesn't mean I actually do anything. I agree with you, otherwise.

Someone threatening to murder a bunch of people may or may not be a crime (depending on the level of threat) but it is a serious social problem that should be addressed. Not by the government, but by us as a people.

“Maybe I forgot to mention something to you: I don’t believe in queens. You think freedom is something you can give and take on a whim. But to your people, freedom is as essential as air. And without it, there is no life. There is only darkness.” -Zaheer

Anything can be used to commit a crime, take a fresh fruits/flowers to a room of a patient getting radiation therapy on purpose and you could be arrested for it. And someone would say, flower,/fresh fruits is a crime?........

Intent matters

[QUOTE=PierzStyx;6457557]

Originally Posted by Suzanimal

Someone threatening to murder a bunch of people may or may not be a crime (depending on the level of threat) but it is a serious social problem that should be addressed. Not by the government, but by us as a people.

I understand that - I was just joking.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.

The essential English leadership secret does not depend on particular intelligence. Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

But of course, as far as the State is concerned, there are no crimes against persons or property - there are only crimes against the State.

Which is exactly why we get bull$#@! like this:

Kirk-Coehlo could face up to six years in state prison when she is sentenced June 16, Couzens said.

Full restitution and punitive damages would be perfectly adequate. A prison term of any length is entirely uncalled for.

But the State doesn't give a damn about making victims whole. It only cares about feeding its own rapacious maw.

Originally Posted by Root

I don't know if that's supposed to be serious or not, but any $#@!s who actually do such a thing are begging for an ass-whipping - and though I wouldn't condone it, I'd not shed a tear if they got it ...

...and though a criminal's bigoted motives shouldn't play into sentencing, it's still worthy of reproach.

I don't have a problem with mitigating or aggravating factors being considered in sentencing. The violent bigotry exhibited by Lauren Kirk-Coehlo can be considered an aggravating factor. It should not be required to be considered, but it should not be prohibited from being considered, either.

The problem I have is that it is not the local community that is deciding whether and how to apply those factors - it is "justice system" apparatchiks and automatons who are making such decisions (such as the "Yolo County probation officials" and their "sentencing reports" mentioned in the OP article).

But of course, as far as the State is concerned, there are no crimes against persons or property - there are only crimes against the State.

Which is exactly why we get bull$#@! like this:Full restitution and punitive damages would be perfectly adequate. A prison term of any length is entirely uncalled for.

But the State doesn't give a damn about making victims whole. It only cares about feeding its own rapacious maw.

I don't know if that's supposed to be serious or not, but any $#@!s who actually do such a thing are begging for an ass-whipping - and though I wouldn't condone it, I'd not shed a tear if they got it ...

No, it's a joke, or at least it was intended to be one. Not my meme for sure.

But of course, as far as the State is concerned, there are no crimes against persons or property - there are only crimes against the State.

Which is exactly why we get bull$#@! like this:Full restitution and punitive damages would be perfectly adequate. A prison term of any length is entirely uncalled for.

But the State doesn't give a damn about making victims whole. It only cares about feeding its own rapacious maw.

I don't know if that's supposed to be serious or not, but any $#@!s who actually do such a thing are begging for an ass-whipping - and though I wouldn't condone it, I'd not shed a tear if they got it ...

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again.

Originally Posted by Ron Paul

The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.

Really? I know the argument that it is the state using thought behind a crime to dole out extra punishment and normally I would have been in agreement with people who think hate crimes are fake crimes. You see, hate crimes are real crimes with a qualifier the way premeditation can be a qualifier to a real crime like murder.

Personally, I have no problem with taking into consideration motive when sentencing. For example, I would be more lenient to a person who steals my wallet and max out all my credit card to pay for their little girls cancer treatment over someone who steals my wallet in order to pay for strippers. Same harm to me but different punishment if I was a judge. So why can't the state have that discretion when it comes to say a hate category?

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

Property crimes are real.

But of course, as far as the State is concerned, there are no crimes against persons or property - there are only crimes against the State.

That is exactly what the state is doing, they are prosecuting the girl for crime against property and person.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

Which is exactly why we get bull$#@! like this:Full restitution and punitive damages would be perfectly adequate. A prison term of any length is entirely uncalled for.

But the State doesn't give a damn about making victims whole. It only cares about feeding its own rapacious maw.

Yes, the state's function is not to help victims recoup financial loses, you have civil courts and insurance to take care of that. Also do you expect the perp in this case to pay out punitive damages? The kind of degenerate psychopath that would go out of their way to pisss these sort of guys off one usually doesn't have the money to pay out financial damages or two wouldn't pay it out if they had the money.

Maybe not 6 years or even 1 year but some jail time could be adequate punishment for them to ruminate on their crimes. And also to disuade other copy cats from doing the same crime

My main issue with hate crime is not that it is fake crime but I think it is unfairly applied amongst different groups. I think collecting and documenting incidents of hate crimes is something good for citizens.

Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.Geralt of Rivia

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I know the argument that it is the state using thought behind a crime to dole out extra punishment and normally I would have been in agreement with people who think hate crimes are fake crimes. You see, hate crimes are real crimes with a qualifier the way premeditation can be a qualifier to a real crime like murder.

Property crimes (like vandalism) are real crimes.

People crimes (like murder) are real crimes.

"Hate" crimes are not real crimes.

Hate crimes are fake crimes.

Originally Posted by juleswin

Personally, I have no problem with taking into consideration motive when sentencing.

For example, I would be more lenient to a person who steals my wallet and max out all my credit card to pay for their little girls cancer treatment over someone who steals my wallet in order to pay for strippers. Same harm to me but different punishment if I was a judge. So why can't the state have that discretion when it comes to say a hate category?

Because the State is not the victim to which (nor the community in which) the crime occurred.

Originally Posted by juleswin

That is exactly what the state is doing, they are prosecuting the girl for crime against property and person.

No, they aren't. If they were, they would be sentencing her to making the victim whole. That is not what they are doing.

The are prosecuting her for crime against the State - that is, they are prosecuting her because she broke the State's statutory rules.

The fact that those rules just happen to involve a property offense is entirely incidental. The State's enactment of malum in se statues is the fig leaf it uses to cover (and the sop it uses to mitigate) its myriad malum prohibitum statutes. The former is the "bait" and the latter is the "switch" ...

Originally Posted by juleswin

Yes, the state's function is not to help victims recoup financial loses [...]

Which is precisely my point.

The state's function is not to redress injustices or to make whole the victims of injustices.

It is to extort fines (which it then keeps for itself) and/or assault, kidnap/imprison, and sometimes even kill people for breaking its rules.

Originally Posted by juleswin

[...], you have civil courts and insurance to take care of that. Also do you expect the perp in this case to pay out punitive damages? The kind of degenerate psychopath that would go out of their way to pisss these sort of guys off one usually doesn't have the money to pay out financial damages or two wouldn't pay it out if they had the money.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you tell us that we have civil courts to "take care of that," and then you tell us that there is no point because "these sort of guys" can't or won't pay.

If they can't pay, then garnish their property or indenture them until they can. And if they can pay but won't - or if they flout the law by bailing out on garnishment or indenturement - then declare them outlaw and remove from them all protection of the law. There is absolutely no need here to stick anyone into a cage for six years - or any other length of time.

Originally Posted by juleswin

Maybe not 6 years or even 1 year but some jail time could be adequate punishment for them to ruminate on their crimes.

No, it isn't. Not so much as one single day in a rape-cage is justified for the property crime of vandalism (no matter how "hateful" it might have been).

And the purpose of justice to not make people "ruminate on their crimes" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It is to make victims whole or to redress as best as may the injustices they have suffered. If in so doing a criminal "turns over a new leaf" after "ruminating on his crime," then that's nice, I suppose - but that hasn't got anything to do with it.

Originally Posted by juleswin

And also to disuade other copy cats from doing the same crime.

Sorry, justifying the imposition of excessive and/or uncalled for punishments on one person in the name of "deterring" some hypothetical others (who might never even exist anyway) is just pure, grade-A bull$#@!.

Originally Posted by juleswin

My main issue with hate crime is not that it is fake crime but I think it is unfairly applied amongst different groups. I think collecting and documenting incidents of hate crimes is something good for citizens.

See all the above. There is no such thing as hate crime. Hate crime is fake crime. Thus, hate crime is always "unfairly" applied.

I think the name is the part that is kinda confusing to some people. You see, nobody is in jail in the US today because they hated on someone else. Hate crimes are enhancement to real crimes, just like premeditation is an enhancer to murder. Premeditation + murder is a real crime the same way that hate + vandalism is a real crime. You already said down post that you have no problem taking motivation into consideration when sentencing someone, then this shouldn't be an issue for you cos that is what they are doing.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

Because the State is not the victim to which (nor the community in which) the crime occurred.

That is an entirely different debate as to who should be responsible for dealing with crime and punishment.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

No, they aren't. If they were, they would be sentencing her to making the victim whole. That is not what they are doing.

The are prosecuting her for crime against the State - that is, they are prosecuting her because she broke the State's statutory rules.

The fact that those rules just happen to involve a property offense is entirely incidental. The State's enactment of malum in se statues is the fig leaf it uses to cover (and the sop it uses to mitigate) its myriad malum prohibitum statutes. The former is the "bait" and the latter is the "switch" ...

Seeing that this is mainly a property crime, I would believe that the real victims in this case could have refused to file charges against the perpetrator. I believe if they really wanted to, they could withdrawn their desire to file charges (maybe telling the law that they want to settle the crime with the criminal instead). But seeing as they didn't, I would consider the state prosecution also as a prosecution against property crime of the victims.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

Which is precisely my point.

The state's function is not to redress injustices or to make whole the victims of injustices.

It is to extort fines (which it then keeps for itself) and/or assault, kidnap/imprison, and sometimes even kill people for breaking its rules.

Now you are contradicting yourself. First you tell us that we have civil courts to "take care of that," and then you tell us that there is no point because "these sort of guys" can't or won't pay.

I am not contradicting myself. I said the criminal courts is not used for addressing financial compensation, that is what civil courts are for. The fact that i think that going to civil court might be a futile venture doesn't mean I am contradicting myself.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

If they can't pay, then garnish their property or indenture them until they can. And if they can pay but won't - or if they flout the law by bailing out on garnishment or indenturement - then declare them outlaw and remove from them all protection of the law. There is absolutely no need here to stick anyone into a cage for six years - or any other length of time.

I disagree with you. I think some criminals and victims could benefit from prison sentences. Imagine we followed your recommendation and this girl just happens to lack the financial funds to pay the damages seeing as she is a Berkeley graduate(loads of student loans) and unemployed. Indenture her? can one indenture her as a prostitute? who makes the rules on how to indenture this woman? and what if she can pay but refuses to pay and the govt revokes all protection from her and someone just kills them. Is that a fair punishment for vandalism? another way of putting it is this, is she in a better situation now that she is dead or would it be better for her to pay for his punishment with something that is freely available to her i.e. her time?

She is facing a maximum of 6 yrs, but she most likely would not get the maximum time

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

No, it isn't. Not so much as one single day in a rape-cage is justified for the property crime of vandalism (no matter how "hateful" it might have been).

But being made an indentured servant for god knows how long is justified right?

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

And the purpose of justice to not make people "ruminate on their crimes" (whatever that is supposed to mean). It is to make victims whole or to redress as best as may the injustices they have suffered. If in so doing a criminal "turns over a new leaf" after "ruminating on his crime," then that's nice, I suppose - but that hasn't got anything to do with it.

For the record, I never said the sole purpose of justice is to make people "ruminate on their crimes". i just think it is one benefit of imprisonment.

You do not understand what ruminate means or care to do a simple google search for the word and yet you know it is not the purpose of justice. Well, i think there are many ways other than financial punishments to render justice and/or make a victim whole. Remember, the case was not just a property crime, there was also a bit of intimidation and threats to commit more crime. How exactly do you go about making the victim whole with the other portion of the crime? sometimes prison sentences and making a scapegoat out of a criminal is justice. Prison sentences takes the criminal away from society and prevents continued victimization for a certain period of time which gives the victim some peace of mind. It also sends a negative signal to future criminals. That to me is justice one form of justice

Lets not forget the idea of revenge where you want to see the criminal suffer.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

Sorry, justifying the imposition of excessive and/or uncalled for punishments on one person in the name of "deterring" some hypothetical others (who might never even exist anyway) is just pure, grade-A bull$#@!.

Well considering that you think 1 day in prison is excessive punishment but making someone an indentured servant isn't. I think you have a warped sense of justice and really don't care that you consider my opinion to be grade A BS.

Originally Posted by Occam's Banana

See all the above. There is no such thing as hate crime. Hate crime is fake crime. Thus, hate crime is always "unfairly" applied.

But there is such a thing like a real crime motivated by hate. It is a category of crime and I don't really have a problem with that just as long as it is applied equally to all groups of people

Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling…makes no difference. The degree is arbitrary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another, I’d rather not choose at all.Geralt of Rivia

You can maintain power over people, as long as you give them something. Rob a man of everything, and that man will no longer be in your power.Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn